(07-08-2025 02:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:07 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see the retard howlers are alit here. Cool cool.

Take the bet then if I'm such a retard.

If I'm a retard then what does that make the person (i.e. you) who has lost multiple times to this retard? You can add another after this one is settled.

He has a losing record to several of us. I finally gave up beating him down, b/c he ignores any salient points anybody makes, brings up some stupid minor point, and types another 1000 words defending it, and explaining why we are all dumbasses.

But I have to admit, he makes me laugh.

Dude loves taking a beating. All it can be

You clearly lack the intellect to apply the amicus curiae in full conjuction to the nolo contendere when dealing with the ex parte desuetude in reference to the legal conundrum posited by the quantum meruit. If one merely applies the ab initio in the truest sense to the habeas corpus, then there is no other logical outcome than the per stirpes when compared to the voir dire of the resipsa loquitor. If one was a smart as I, then this conclusion is prima facie.

I'm a patent attorney who spends all day on this message board to educate you howler monkeys. You all should be grateful that I'm here. Cool, cool.

Love,
Tanq

Hey Tanq, you don't know a damn thing about me, and as usual, you are FOS. But damn entertaining.

You have to be one extreme level of a-hole not to be embarrassed by how you interact with folks here. That's the amazing part.

(07-08-2025 02:07 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see the retard howlers are alit here. Cool cool.

Take the bet then if I'm such a retard.

I take it you think yourself a retard howler? Your stuff has an iota of substance, and sometimes not a whole hea[ing load of nothing but insults.

For the record, neither retard, nor howler at the current.

I told you, instead of the bet, try answering the simple question that you waltzed away from so daintily.

If you want to do your bull**** schlock jumior gman testosterone epeen bet stuff and pound your cute little frumpy chicken fried grease stained uniform shirt in that manner -- go right ahead, my friend.

You ran away from a very simple yes/ no question, mind you. Lolz.

The simple fact is you:
-- dont have a fing clue about the impact of 1st amendment on this,
-- dont have a fing clue about the issue of viewpoint discrimination on the issue,
-- dont have a clue as to the main issue in the lawsuit,
-- dont have a clue that the issue isnt to direct funding,
-- dont have a clue how to distinguish paid for services from such direct funding,
-- dont have a clue that how people expend their earned money is simply their business in terms of political activity
-- pound your junior gman authoritarian handle of 'President kann doo anyting hee wantz wit da money' garbage,
-- followed interestingly by the self-contradictory position to above of 'Congress has unfettered power of the purse',
-- followed by an amazing void of the contents of the 1st amendment and how that might impact the issue.

If you have the spine and chops you claim, answer my first question. Easy peasy.

Quote:If I'm a retard then what does that make the person (i.e. you) who has lost multiple times to this retard? You can add another after this one is settled.

Im not the person who runs away from answering a single simple question, good sir.


My answer to your epeen bet **** is -- I typically dont do epeen driven bet ****. Which seems to have captivated transfixed your gander gaze pretty tightly.

If you have spine and chops you exhibit with your epeen bet **** above, maybe apply that spine and chops to answering my very easy yes/ no question.

Here is the full thing: A government, has zero business making a decision on the eligibility of a group providing Medicare services, and being paid for those services, based on *any* political viewpoint test.

We shall see if the courts note that. You seem flabbergasted by the mere mention of that. Cool cool.

(07-08-2025 02:33 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  You clearly lack the intellect to apply the amicus curiae in full conjuction to the nolo contendere when dealing with the ex parte desuetude in reference to the legal conundrum posited by the quantum meruit. If one merely applies the ab initio in the truest sense to the habeas corpus, then there is no other logical outcome than the per stirpes when compared to the voir dire of the resipsa loquitor. If one was a smart as I, then this conclusion is prima facie.

I'm a patent attorney who spends all day on this message board to educate you howler monkeys. You all should be grateful that I'm here. Cool, cool.

Love,
Tanq

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

(07-08-2025 02:47 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:33 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  You clearly lack the intellect to apply the amicus curiae in full conjuction to the nolo contendere when dealing with the ex parte desuetude in reference to the legal conundrum posited by the quantum meruit. If one merely applies the ab initio in the truest sense to the habeas corpus, then there is no other logical outcome than the per stirpes when compared to the voir dire of the resipsa loquitor. If one was a smart as I, then this conclusion is prima facie.

I'm a patent attorney who spends all day on this message board to educate you howler monkeys. You all should be grateful that I'm here. Cool, cool.

Love,
Tanq

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Post of the month

quote='tanqtonic' pid='20213627' dateline='1752003948']

(07-08-2025 02:07 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see the retard howlers are alit here. Cool cool.

Take the bet then if I'm such a retard.

I take it you think yourself a retard howler? Your stuff has an iota of substance, and sometimes not a whole hea[ing load of nothing but insults.

For the record, neither retard, nor howler at the current.

I told you, instead of the bet, try answering the simple question that you waltzed away from so daintily.

If you want to do your bull**** schlock jumior gman testosterone epeen bet stuff and pound your cute little frumpy chicken fried grease stained uniform shirt in that manner -- go right ahead, my friend.

You ran away from a very simple yes/ no question, mind you. Lolz.

The simple fact is you:
-- dont have a fing clue about the impact of 1st amendment on this,
-- dont have a fing clue about the issue of viewpoint discrimination on the issue,
-- dont have a clue as to the main issue in the lawsuit,
-- dont have a clue that the issue isnt to direct funding,
-- dont have a clue how to distinguish paid for services from such direct funding,
-- dont have a clue that how people expend their earned money is simply their business in terms of political activity
-- pound your junior gman authoritarian handle of 'President kann doo anyting hee wantz wit da money' garbage,
-- followed interestingly by the self-contradictory position to above of 'Congress has unfettered power of the purse',
-- followed by an amazing void of the contents of the 1st amendment and how that might impact the issue.

If you have the spine and chops you claim, answer my first question. Easy peasy.

Quote:If I'm a retard then what does that make the person (i.e. you) who has lost multiple times to this retard? You can add another after this one is settled.

Im not the person who runs away from answering a single simple question, good sir.


My answer to your epeen bet **** is -- I typically dont do epeen driven bet ****. Which seems to have captivated transfixed your gander gaze pretty tightly.

If you have spine and chops you exhibit with your epeen bet **** above, maybe apply that spine and chops to answering my very easy yes/ no question.

Here is the full thing: A government, has zero business making a decision on the eligibility of a group providing Medicare services, and being paid for those services, based on *any* political viewpoint test.

We shall see if the courts note that. You seem flabbergasted by the mere mention of that. Cool cool.
[/quote]


quote='tanqtonic' pid='20213627' dateline='1752003948']

(07-08-2025 02:07 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see the retard howlers are alit here. Cool cool.

Take the bet then if I'm such a retard.

I take it you think yourself a retard howler? Your stuff has an iota of substance, and sometimes not a whole hea[ing load of nothing but insults.

For the record, neither retard, nor howler at the current.

I told you, instead of the bet, try answering the simple question that you waltzed away from so daintily.

If you want to do your bull**** schlock jumior gman testosterone epeen bet stuff and pound your cute little frumpy chicken fried grease stained uniform shirt in that manner -- go right ahead, my friend.

You ran away from a very simple yes/ no question, mind you. Lolz.

The simple fact is you:
-- dont have a fing clue about the impact of 1st amendment on this,
-- dont have a fing clue about the issue of viewpoint discrimination on the issue,
-- dont have a clue as to the main issue in the lawsuit,
-- dont have a clue that the issue isnt to direct funding,
-- dont have a clue how to distinguish paid for services from such direct funding,
-- dont have a clue that how people expend their earned money is simply their business in terms of political activity
-- pound your junior gman authoritarian handle of 'President kann doo anyting hee wantz wit da money' garbage,
-- followed interestingly by the self-contradictory position to above of 'Congress has unfettered power of the purse',
-- followed by an amazing void of the contents of the 1st amendment and how that might impact the issue.

If you have the spine and chops you claim, answer my first question. Easy peasy.

Quote:If I'm a retard then what does that make the person (i.e. you) who has lost multiple times to this retard? You can add another after this one is settled.

Im not the person who runs away from answering a single simple question, good sir.


My answer to your epeen bet **** is -- I typically dont do epeen driven bet ****. Which seems to have captivated transfixed your gander gaze pretty tightly.

If you have spine and chops you exhibit with your epeen bet **** above, maybe apply that spine and chops to answering my very easy yes/ no question.

Here is the full thing: A government, has zero business making a decision on the eligibility of a group providing Medicare services, and being paid for those services, based on *any* political viewpoint test.

We shall see if the courts note that. You seem flabbergasted by the mere mention of that. Cool cool.
[/quote]


quote='tanqtonic' pid='20213627' dateline='1752003948']

(07-08-2025 02:07 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see the retard howlers are alit here. Cool cool.

Take the bet then if I'm such a retard.

I take it you think yourself a retard howler? Your stuff has an iota of substance, and sometimes not a whole hea[ing load of nothing but insults.

For the record, neither retard, nor howler at the current.

I told you, instead of the bet, try answering the simple question that you waltzed away from so daintily.

If you want to do your bull**** schlock jumior gman testosterone epeen bet stuff and pound your cute little frumpy chicken fried grease stained uniform shirt in that manner -- go right ahead, my friend.

You ran away from a very simple yes/ no question, mind you. Lolz.

The simple fact is you:
-- dont have a fing clue about the impact of 1st amendment on this,
-- dont have a fing clue about the issue of viewpoint discrimination on the issue,
-- dont have a clue as to the main issue in the lawsuit,
-- dont have a clue that the issue isnt to direct funding,
-- dont have a clue how to distinguish paid for services from such direct funding,
-- dont have a clue that how people expend their earned money is simply their business in terms of political activity
-- pound your junior gman authoritarian handle of 'President kann doo anyting hee wantz wit da money' garbage,
-- followed interestingly by the self-contradictory position to above of 'Congress has unfettered power of the purse',
-- followed by an amazing void of the contents of the 1st amendment and how that might impact the issue.

If you have the spine and chops you claim, answer my first question. Easy peasy.

Quote:If I'm a retard then what does that make the person (i.e. you) who has lost multiple times to this retard? You can add another after this one is settled.

Im not the person who runs away from answering a single simple question, good sir.


My answer to your epeen bet **** is -- I typically dont do epeen driven bet ****. Which seems to have captivated transfixed your gander gaze pretty tightly.

If you have spine and chops you exhibit with your epeen bet **** above, maybe apply that spine and chops to answering my very easy yes/ no question.

Here is the full thing: A government, has zero business making a decision on the eligibility of a group providing Medicare services, and being paid for those services, based on *any* political viewpoint test.

We shall see if the courts note that. You seem flabbergasted by the mere mention of that. Cool cool.
[/quote]




K

(07-08-2025 02:36 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Hey Tanq, you don't know a damn thing about me, and as usual, you are FOS. But damn entertaining.

You have to be one extreme level of a-hole not to be embarrassed by how you interact with folks here. That's the amazing part.

You are correct. I know nothing about you personal wise. That is why I avoid calling you a MAGA idiot, or some other thing that implies personal knowledge of who you are or what you do, or what you did.

I do note your absence of direct knowledge on a few things, and mention that debating by empty rhetoric is stupid. Or debating by personal slams is the same level of stupid. You might note, Ive responded to you here in much the same tone, post for post today, that you exhibit to me.

And I too will say that for many things, you too are completely full of ****, and further, when pressed, simply revert to the constant of being a whiny *****. Which you diplay in its full peacock glory last post, and in this one.

And no, I am not embarrassed in treating folks in the same manner. Bummer. You be you, my friend.

(07-08-2025 02:33 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  You clearly lack the intellect to apply the amicus curiae in full conjuction to the nolo contendere when dealing with the ex parte desuetude in reference to the legal conundrum posited by the quantum meruit. If one merely applies the ab initio in the truest sense to the habeas corpus, then there is no other logical outcome than the per stirpes when compared to the voir dire of the resipsa loquitor. If one was a smart as I, then this conclusion is prima facie.

I'm a patent attorney who spends all day on this message board to educate you howler monkeys. You all should be grateful that I'm here. Cool, cool.

Love,
Tanq

I love it when idiots simply speak with their mouths full of ****. Please continue there oru.


And hate to tell you Einstein, havent done nose to floor patent work in many a moon. But, why let little facts clog up that pinhead cranium when you can make up anything at all you want when you do that slobber speak you seemingly excel at. Neat job above there.

Triggered again.

(07-08-2025 02:57 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Triggered again.

Im glad youve graduated to the area beyond 'you can stuff your opinion where the sun dont shine' trigger fest, good buddy.

(07-08-2025 02:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:57 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Triggered again.

Im glad youve graduated to the area beyond 'you can stuff your opinion where the sun dont shine' trigger fest, good buddy.

Oh you can still do that.

(07-08-2025 02:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:07 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see the retard howlers are alit here. Cool cool.

Take the bet then if I'm such a retard.

I take it you think yourself a retard howler? Your stuff has an iota of substance, and sometimes not a whole hea[ing load of nothing but insults.

For the record, neither retard, nor howler at the current.

I told you, instead of the bet, try answering the simple question that you waltzed away from so daintily.

If you want to do your bull**** schlock jumior gman testosterone epeen bet stuff and pound your cute little frumpy chicken fried grease stained uniform shirt in that manner -- go right ahead, my friend.

You ran away from a very simple yes/ no question, mind you. Lolz.

The simple fact is you:
-- dont have a fing clue about the impact of 1st amendment on this,
-- dont have a fing clue about the issue of viewpoint discrimination on the issue,
-- dont have a clue as to the main issue in the lawsuit,
-- dont have a clue that the issue isnt to direct funding,
-- dont have a clue how to distinguish paid for services from such direct funding,
-- dont have a clue that how people expend their earned money is simply their business in terms of political activity
-- pound your junior gman authoritarian handle of 'President kann doo anyting hee wantz wit da money' garbage,
-- followed interestingly by the self-contradictory position to above of 'Congress has unfettered power of the purse',
-- followed by an amazing void of the contents of the 1st amendment and how that might impact the issue.

If you have the spine and chops you claim, answer my first question. Easy peasy.

Quote:If I'm a retard then what does that make the person (i.e. you) who has lost multiple times to this retard? You can add another after this one is settled.

Im not the person who runs away from answering a single simple question, good sir.


My answer to your epeen bet **** is -- I typically dont do epeen driven bet ****. Which seems to have captivated transfixed your gander gaze pretty tightly.

If you have spine and chops you exhibit with your epeen bet **** above, maybe apply that spine and chops to answering my very easy yes/ no question.

Here is the full thing: A government, has zero business making a decision on the eligibility of a group providing Medicare services, and being paid for those services, based on *any* political viewpoint test.

We shall see if the courts note that. You seem flabbergasted by the mere mention of that. Cool cool.

"decision on the eligibility of a group providing Medicare services"

Isn't this about Medicaid services ?

(07-08-2025 02:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:33 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  You clearly lack the intellect to apply the amicus curiae in full conjuction to the nolo contendere when dealing with the ex parte desuetude in reference to the legal conundrum posited by the quantum meruit. If one merely applies the ab initio in the truest sense to the habeas corpus, then there is no other logical outcome than the per stirpes when compared to the voir dire of the resipsa loquitor. If one was a smart as I, then this conclusion is prima facie.

I'm a patent attorney who spends all day on this message board to educate you howler monkeys. You all should be grateful that I'm here. Cool, cool.

Love,
Tanq

I love it when idiots simply speak with their mouths full of ****. Please continue there oru.


And hate to tell you Einstein, havent done nose to floor patent work in many a moon. But, why let little facts clog up that pinhead cranium when you can make up anything at all you want when you do that slobber speak you seemingly excel at. Neat job above there.

Keep being you Tanq! You bring more laughter than you could ever imagine!

(07-08-2025 03:00 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-08-2025 02:57 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Triggered again.

Im glad youve graduated to the area beyond 'you can stuff your opinion where the sun dont shine' trigger fest, good buddy.

Oh you can still do that.

Im glad you are still triggered enough to bring that up. I see you are on your manic upcurve of responding to each and everything I say. Maybe think about benzodiazepines? No matter, cool cool mr warrior trigger.

Dude, you just go on making a fool of yourself.

(07-08-2025 03:13 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Dude, you just go on making a fool of yourself.

And what makes that even better, is that he has no idea. He actually thinks himself to be brilliant!

It's breathtaking

(07-08-2025 03:13 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Dude, you just go on making a fool of yourself.

Cool cool, warrior trigger boy.

We need to hang this thread in the Jackassery Hall of Fame. Tanq has taken his BS to a whole 'nother level. Impressive.